Tzortzis v. County of Los Alamos

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Tzortzis v. County of Los Alamos

773 P.2d 363, 108 N.M. 418

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 1989

Docket11297

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 773 P.2d 363 (Tzortzis v. County of Los Alamos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tzortzis v. County of Los Alamos, 773 P.2d 363, 108 N.M. 418 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HARTZ, Judge.

Claimant has moved to dismiss respondents’ appeal from a final disposition order of the Workmen’s Compensation Administration dated January 18, 1989. Claimant contends that the notice of appeal filed with this court on February 21, 1989, was untimely. We agree.

Respondents rely on NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-8(A) (Repl.Pamp.1987), which reads: “Any party in interest may, within thirty days of mailing of the final order of the hearing officer, file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals.” (Emphasis added.) On the other hand, SCRA 1986, 12-601(A) provides in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, direct appeals from orders, decisions or actions of boards, commissions, administrative agencies or officials shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal * * * within thirty (30) days from the date of the order, decision or action appealed from.” (Emphasis added.) When a statute governing the time for appeal conflicts with a supreme court rule, the rule governs. See American Auto. Ass’n v. State Corp. Comm’n, 102 N.M. 527, 697 P.2d 946 (1985); James v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep’t, Income Support Div., 106 N.M. 318, 742 P.2d 530 (Ct.App.1987).

Respondents could have sought an extension of time from this court pursuant to SCRA 1986, 12-201(E)(2) and -601(B), but the time for such a request has expired. See SCRA 1986, 12-201(E)(4). It is therefore ordered that claimant-appellee’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONNELLY and APODACA, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HARTZ, Judge.

Claimant has moved to dismiss respondents’ appeal from a final disposition order of the Workmen’s Compensation Administration dated January 18, 1989. Claimant contends that the notice of appeal filed with this court on February 21, 1989, was untimely. We agree.

Respondents rely on NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-8(A) (Repl.Pamp.1987), which reads: “Any party in interest may, within thirty days of mailing of the final order of the hearing officer, file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals.” (Emphasis added.) On the other hand, SCRA 1986, 12-601(A) provides in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, direct appeals from orders, decisions or actions of boards, commissions, administrative agencies or officials shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal * * * within thirty (30) days from the date of the order, decision or action appealed from.” (Emphasis added.) When a statute governing the time for appeal conflicts with a supreme court rule, the rule governs. See American Auto. Ass’n v. State Corp. Comm’n, 102 N.M. 527, 697 P.2d 946 (1985); James v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep’t, Income Support Div., 106 N.M. 318, 742 P.2d 530 (Ct.App.1987).

Respondents could have sought an extension of time from this court pursuant to SCRA 1986, 12-201(E)(2) and -601(B), but the time for such a request has expired. See SCRA 1986, 12-201(E)(4). It is therefore ordered that claimant-appellee’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONNELLY and APODACA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 P.2d 363, 108 N.M. 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tzortzis-v-county-of-los-alamos-nmctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack